...on the final approach

...on the final approach
little known facts (or myths).

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Dr. Michael Barratt MD, MS

NASA LogoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas 77058
[Michael Barratt]

Biographical Data


Michael Reed Barratt (M.D., M.S.)
NASA Astronaut
PERSONAL DATA: Born on April 16, 1959 in Vancouver, Washington. Considers Camas, Washington, to be his home town. Married to the former Michelle Lynne Sasynuik. They have five children. His father and mother, Joseph and Donna Barratt, reside in Camas, Washington. Personal and recreational interests include writing, sailing, boat restoration and maintenance, family and church activities.
EDUCATION: Graduated from Camas High School, Camas, WA, 1977. B.S., Zoology, University of Washington, 1981. M.D., Northwestern University, 1985. Completed 3-year residency in Internal Medicine at Northwestern University in 1988. Completed Chief Residency year at Veterans Administration Lakeside Hospital in Chicago in 1989. Completed residency and Master's program in Aerospace Medicine at Wright State University in 1991. Board certified in Internal and Aerospace Medicine.
ORGANIZATIONS: Aerospace Medical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
SPECIAL HONORS: W. Randolph Lovelace Award (1998), Society of NASA Flight Surgeons; Rotary National Award for Space Achievement Foundation Nominee (1998); Melbourne W. Boynton Award (1995), American Astronautical Society; USAF Flight Surgeons Julian Ward Award (1992); Wright State University Outstanding Graduate Student, Aerospace Medicine (1991); Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL (1988); Phi Beta Kappa, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (1981).
EXPERIENCE: Dr. Barratt came to NASA JSC in May 1991 employed as a project physician with KRUG Life Sciences, working on medical systems for Space Station Freedom. In July 1992, he was assigned as NASA Flight Surgeon, working in Space Shuttle Medical Operations. In January 1994, he was assigned to the joint U.S./Russian Shuttle - Mir Program, working and training extensively in the Cosmonaut Training Center, Star City, Russia, in support of the Mir-18/STS-71 and subsequent missions.
From July 1995 to July 1998, he served as Medical Operations Lead for the International Space Station (ISS). A frequent traveler to Russia, he worked with counterparts at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center and Institute of Biomedical Problems as well as other international partner centers. Dr. Barratt served as lead crew surgeon for the first expedition crew to ISS from July 1998 until he was selected as an astronaut candidate.
Dr. Barratt serves as Associate Editor for Space Medicine for the journal, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine and is senior editor of the textbook, Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight.

NASA EXPERIENCE: Selected as a mission specialist by NASA in July 2000, Dr. Barratt reported for training in August 2000. Following the completion of 2 years of training and evaluation, he was assigned technical duties in the Astronaut Office Station Operations Branch.
Assigned to long duration flight training in 2005, Dr. Barratt launched on Soyuz TMA-14 on March 26, 2009, to the ISS and served as a member of Expeditions 19 and 20. This time period included the transition from three to six permanent ISS crewmembers, two EVAs, two visiting space shuttles and the arrival of the first Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Completing 199 days in space, Dr. Barratt landed on October 11, 2009.
STS-133 (February 24 to March 9, 2011), was the 39th and final mission for Space Shuttle Discovery. During the 13-day flight, the Discovery crew delivered the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and the fourth Express Logistics Carrier (ELC) to the ISS. The mission's two spacewalks assisted in outfitting the truss of the station and completed a variety of other tasks designed to upgrade station systems. The mission was accomplished in 202 Earth orbits, traveling 5.3 million miles in 307 hours and 3 minutes.
Currently, Dr. Barratt manages the Human Research Program at NASA Johnson Space Center. This program guides applied research oriented toward mitigating the most prominent health and performance risks associated with human spaceflight.
JANUARY 2012

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Convair B-58 Hustler


History

Operational History

By July of 1956, construction of the first B-58 was well underway. The name Hustler was officially applied to the aircraft at this time, although it had been used in-house at Convair for years before that. The delays in the B-58 program were such that the development of the General Electric J79 engine caught up with the Convair airframe program and the initial flight testing with the J57 was not necessary. By August, the four YJ79-GE-1 engines had arrived at Convair. The YJ79-GE-1 was an early test version of the J79 and was nominally rated at 9300 lb.s.t. dry and 14,350 lb.s.t. with maximum afterburner. It was basically an experimental engine and was not capable of sustained operations with any regularity. Mean time between engine overhauls was very limited and numerous teething problems were encountered. It was, however, the first Mach 2-capable production turbojet in its class. The first B-58, at that time officially designated YB/RB-58 and serialed 55-0660, was completed in late August, and was rolled out of the factory on September 4, 1956. It had little in the way of operational equipment fitted, the available space being taken up primarily by test equipment. The first engine run-up was on October 1, and the first taxi tests began on Oct 29. 55-660 made its maiden flight on November 11, 1956, taking off from the Convair Fort Worth facilities at Carswell AFB, Texas. John H. Watson and Richard Swenson, fllight control engineers, were in the Control Tower in support of the first flight.The crew of three consisted of B.A. Erickson, pilot, John. D. McEachern systems specialist, and Charles P. Harrison as flight test engineer. The underfuselage pod was not fitted. The maximum speed reached on the first flight was Mach 0.9. Supersonic flight was first achieved on December 30, at which time Mach 1.17 was attained. Category I tests began in November, and lasted for about 3000 hours of flight time. On February 16, 1957, 55-0661 flew for the first time with a pod, a test MB-1 free-fall pod. On June 29, 1957, 55-0660, while carrying a "dry" MB-1 pod, reached Mach 2.03 at 43,350 feet. On June 5, 1957, the first pod drop took place, when 55-0662 released an MB-1 pod while flying at Mach 0.9 at 40,000 feet over the Holloman AFB test range. Successful drops took place at progressively higher and higher speeds, culminating on December 20 in a drop at Mach 2.0 from above 60,000 feet.
B-36, XB-58 and B-50 By the end of 1957, the YB-58 had attained a maximum speed of Mach 2.11 at altitudes over 50,000 feet. It had made two successful pod drops from 42,000 feet at speeds of over Mach 2. It had maintained a speed of more than Mach 1.15 for 91 minutes. The J79-GE-1 engines installed on the first YB-58s pending certification of the J79-GE-5s had some flaws. Malfunctions in the fuel system caused the fuel to slosh around (fuel stacking) in the fuel tanks when the aircraft accelerated or slowed down, causing stability problems. Problems with the afterburners caused intermittent yawing at supersonic speeds. There were acoustical and sonic fatigue problems caused by excessive vibration in the engines. Some fatigue-related cracks began to appear along the rivet lines in the forward sections of the fuselage. There were problems with the wheel braking system. Because of inadequate heat dissipation while braking, tire failures were frequent during landings at high gross weights as well at high taxiing speeds. The ejection seats originally provided were unsafe at high speeds due to insufficient thrust. Slippage in the bombing navigation subsystem development program threatened a delay in the delivery of the initial service aircraft. One engineless B-58 airframe (never assigned a serial number but built between 55-663 and 55-664) was allocated to long-term fatigue testing. The airframe was delivered to the Wright Development Center Structures Test Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio by adapting B-36F 49-2677 as a transport, carrying the airframe underneath its fuselage in much the same manner as had been intended in the original parasite program. In order to do this, the B-36's inboard propellers had to be removed and a temporary shackle system was attached to the bomb hoist mechanism. The ground clearance for the suspended B-58 airframe was only 22 inches. This delivery took place on March 12, 1957. After delivery, four engines were added to the airframe to make the fatigue tests more realistic. The photographs released of the B-36/B-58 airframe combination were misunderstood by some who imagined that the B-36 actually launched the B-58 in mid-air! The first YJ79-GE-5s arrived at Convair on September 27, 1957. Refueling tests began on June 11, 1958. The B-58 proved to be entirely compatible with the KC-135 tanker and was relatively easy to refuel in-flight. Category II tests officially started in March of 1959, but actually began in February of 1958 since some tests normally done under Category I were done under Category II. This was because of the November 1957 decision to consolidate the B-58 test program under the weapons system office. These tests included pod drops and aerial refueling. Category II testing was completed on June 30, 1960, after achieving 1216 flight hours in 256 sorties. Two YB-58As were flight tested from Edwards AFB, California and from Convair's Fort Worth airfield. Another aircraft went to Eglin AFB, Florida for climatic hangar evaluation. The accelerated service test of the J79-GE-5 engine was started under Category II, but completed under Category III when SAC crews accumulated 170 additional hours of flight. Seven test aircraft were lost between December 1958 and June 1960, including one which disintegrated in flight. On June 11, 1959, the Air Force announced that it planned to purchase 290 B-58s, including the 30 pre-production and test aircraft. They would be used to equip a 5-wing force. It was anticipated that the first tactical wing would be ready in November of 1960. The first combat-ready production aircraft (B-58 number 31, 59-2428) was ready in the spring of 1959. In the meantime, the B-58 program was once again in jeopardy. On July 14, 1959, General Thomas Power was informed by the Pentagon that there were insufficient funds to satisfy all of SAC's needs. At that time, some 290 B-58s were scheduled for production, at a peak rate of 6 per month. There would have to be major cutbacks. By December of 1959, SAC had scaled back its plans and was now going to buy only 148 aircraft. The cost of the 118 aircraft now scheduled through FY 1961 was estimated at about 3 billion dollars, which made each B-58 literally worth more than its weight in gold. In addition, the first operational squadron was now delayed from June to December of 1960 for activation, and the first wing of 36 rather than 45 aircraft would be ready in August of 1961. Several accidents had revealed that the Convair-developed ejection seats were not sufficient to protect the crew throughout the B-58's performance envelope. Consequently, an encapsulated seat built by Stanley Aviation Corporation of Denver, Colorado was adopted. Due to the delays in the B-58 program, the various aircraft that had been delivered had great variation in equipment, systems updates, maintenance requirements and capabilities. As a result, the USAF instituted the Senior Flash-Up program to update and normalize the aircraft in the inventory. The first aircraft to go through the program was delivered to SAC on November 7, 1960. Among the changes introduced were anti-icing systems, electronic countermeasures gear, an improved HACON and TACAN installations, and a structurally improved vertical fin and fuselage empennage systems. As the flight test program neared completion, the Air Force was faced with the problem of what to do with the flight test aircraft. Many of them had low times on their airframes and were hence still viable from a useful life standpoint. It was decided that these aircraft would be updated and configured for operational service under a program named Junior Flash-Up, which started in February of 1960. Later, other low airframe time pre-production aircraft were added to the program. Eventually, eleven of the 17 test aircraft produced under the second B-58 contract were upgraded. On October 15, 1959, 58-1015 flew from Seattle, Washington to Carswell AFB in 70 minutes at an average speed of nearly 1320 mph. This was the first sustained Mach 2 flight. In mid-1960 a lack of funds, competition from other weapon systems, and a variety of complex and at times biased, political and technological decisions had all combined to cause delays in the B-58's operational deployment. Consequently, although the aircraft had been scheduled to become operational in June, it was not activiated and it did not appear likely to be activated until at least January, 1961. The accident rate in 1959 and 1960 had also raised concerns which contributed to the delay. The first accident had taken place on December 16, 1958, near Cannon AFB, New Mexico when 58-0018 was lost. The accident was attributed to a loss of control during normal flight when autotrim and ratio changer were rendered inoperative due to an electrical system failure. On May 14, 1959, 58-1012 was destroyed by fire during a refueling operation at Carswell AFB. 58-1017 was destroyed on September 16 of that year when a tire blew during takeoff from Carswell AFB. On October 27, 55-0669 was destroyed near Hattiesburg, Mississippi when it lost control during normal flight. On November 7, 55-0664 was destroyed during a high-speed test flight near Lawton, Oklahoma when it disintegrated in mid-air. Convair test pilot Raymond Fitzgerald and Convair flight engineer Donald A. Siedhof were both killed in this accident. The flight was attempting to collect vertical fin side loads data under the conditions of the loss of an engine at high speed. On April 22, 1960 a failure of the Mach/airspeed/air data system caused the loss of 58-1023 near Hill AFB, Utah. On June 4, 1960, 55-0667 was lost due to pilot error while flying at supersonic speed near Lubbock, Texas. The accident rate made SAC apprehensive about the reliability of the aircraft in service, and led to postponement of Category III testing. In addition, the Fitzgerald accident raised questions about certain aspects of the complex flight control system, in particular the PCLA hydraulic system. As a result, B-58s were restricted to subsonic flight only for nearly a year afterwards until the control system and tail structure could be modified. In all fairness, it should be noted that the B-58 operated in a flight regime that was unheard of at the time. The B-58 cruised at over two times the speed of the bombers that came before it. The leap forward in performance for which this aircraft was designed adds risks that must be considered when looking at the initial safety record. In addition, Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay initially favored B-36 pilots over B-47 and B-52 pilots for unknown reasons. Whether the substantial flying technique transitions these pilots had to make contributed the initial accident rate is unclear today. SAC was still planning on three B-58 wings, since they concluded that a small, fully operational B-58 force would force the Soviet Union to develop some system of Mach 2 defenses that could cover all possible targets or accept the amount of destruction that a three-wing force could inflict. Most of the major targets west of the Urals would be vulnerable to an attack by refueled B-58s, with the B-52 and B-47 fleets providing mutual support for penetration of Soviet early warning and defense nets. The financial cost to the Soviets of developing a method of defense against the B-58 would be extraordinary and much greater than the cost of three B-58 bomb wings. With Mach 2 high altitude performance, the B-58 would greatly improve the overall strategic capability of SAC and require the Soviet Union to spend money at an unsustainable rate to defend against it. History has now shown that the demise of the Soviet Union was accelerated by such expenditures. Meanwhile, SAC had assumed that a three-wing B-58 fleet would be funded. The first two wings would be based at Carswell AFB and Bunker Hill AFB, but SAC was not sure where the third one would be located. General Power, Lt. Gen. J.P. McConnell, and other SAC officers argued that the third wing should be at Little Rock AFB in Arkansas. General Power asked his staff to start planning for the aircraft, along with a fleet of KC-135 tankers, to be located at this base. In January of 1960, the USAF announced its intention to activate the first B-58 Wing. This was to be the 43rd BW, at that time based at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. The 43rd BW would be moved to Carswell AFB starting on March 1. The 3958th Operational, Test and Evaluation Unit (then functioning as an integral unit at Carswell) would be transferred to the 43rd BW upon its arrival. On August 1, 1960, the USAF finally formally assumed B-58 operations responsibility and began Category III testing. 59-2436, the first fully-operational Hustler equipped with all tactical systems, was delivered to the 43rd. Two weeks later, the first TB-58A was delivered to Carswell AFB. The 43rd BW received its first B-58 on March 15, 1960. On March 23, a test unit B-58A (55-0671) remained airborne for 18 hours 10 minutes while averaging an airspeed of 620 mph over 11,000 miles. This was apparently the longest-lasting single flight ever by a B-58. The 43rd BW received deliveries beginning in December of 1960. However, technical difficulties continued to plague the B-58, and on March 10, 1961 SAC had once again to set back the operational readiness date of the 43rd BW. The second wing to receive the B-58 was the 305th BW at Bunker Hill AFB. Equipping of the wing began in December of 1960. Following official instigation of the reorganization of the unit on January 9, 1961 and its attainment of wing status on February 1, the first aircraft was flown to Bunker Hill on May 11. Two months later, the first TB-58A arrived. The wing was declared operationally ready in August of 1962. In late 1960, in order to put pressure on the Soviets, the USAF decided to publicize the capabilities of its new B-58s by capturing a series of aviation records. The first of these was a project known as Quick Step I in which 59-2442 of the 43rd BW set three new speed-with-payload records (0, 1000 and 2000 kilogram payloads) by flying at a speed of 1061 mph over a closed circuit 2000-kilometer course on January 12, 1961. On the same flight, the crew also set a 1000-kilometer record by flying at an average speed of 1200.19 mph. The closed circuit and 2000-kg records still stand. On January 14, 59-2441 set three international speed-with-payload records by flying at a speed of 1284.73 mph over a 1000-km closed circuit. The crew of 59-2441 (Lt. Col. Harold Confer, Lt. Col. Richard Weir and Major Howard Bialas) were awarded the 1961 Thompson Trophy for this feat. On May 10, 1961, 59-2451 crewed by Major Elmer Murphy, Major Eugene Moses and Lt. David Dickerson, flew a 1073-kilometer closed course at an average speed of 1302.07 mph, taking 30 minutes and 43 seconds to complete the course. This won the Bleriot Trophy, which had been established back in 1930 by the famous French aviator M. Louis Bleriot to be awarded permanently to any aircraft flying for at least a half-hour at an average speed of 2000 km/hr (1242.74 mph). On May 26, 1961, 59-2451, crewed by Maj. William Payne, Capt. William Polhemus and Capt. Raymond Wagener, while en route to the 1961 Paris Air Show, set a New York-to-Paris speed record, covering the 3626.46 mile route in 3 hours, 19 minutes, 58 seconds (an average speed of 1089.36 mph). The flight also set a Washington, D.C.-to-Paris (3833.4 miles) speed record of 3 hours, 39 minutes, 48 seconds (average speed of 1048.68 mph). The crew was later awarded the prestigious Mackay and Harmon Trophies for this flight. Sadly, the return flight crew, consisting of Maj. Elmer Murphy, Major Eugene Moses and Lt. David Dickerson (the same crew who had won the Bleriot Trophy two weeks earlier) were killed when 59-2451 crashed on June 3 following departure from Le Bourget Field. Further records were set on March 5, 1962, when 59-2458 crewed by Capt. Robert Sowers, Capt. Robert Macdonald and Capt. John Walton set a transcontinental speed record by flying non-stop from Los Angeles to New York and back again. The first leg (Los Angeles to New York) was completed in 2 hours, 0 minutes, 56.8 seconds at an average speed of 1214.71 mph. The return leg was completed in 2 hours, 15 minutes, 48.6 seconds, at an average speed of 1081.77 mph. This return flight was particularly notable, because it was the first transcontinental flight in history that moved across the country at a speed faster than the rotational speed of the earth! The 43rd BW was declared combat-ready in August of 1962. The wing was first placed on alert in September of 1962. On September 18, 1962, 59-2456, with a crew consisting of Major Fitzhugh Fulton, Captain W.R. Payne and civilian flight test engineer C.R. Haines was used to set two more records. During a zoom climb over Edwards AFB, the aircraft reached an altitude of 85,360.84 feet while carrying a payload of 5000 kg, winning the crew the 1962 Harmon trophy. This broke two previous Soviet-held records. On October 16, 1962, 61-2059 crewed by Major Sidney Kubesch, Major John Barrett and Captain Gerard Williamson, flew supersonically from Tokyo to London, spending five hours at supersonic speed. The flight set five world absolute records. Two USAF Bomb Wings operated the B-58:
43rd Bomb Wing, Carswell AFB (later moved to Little Rock AFB)
63rd Bomb Squadron
64th Bomb Squadron
65th Bomb Squadron
305th Bomb Wing, Bunker Hill AFB (renamed Grissom AFB in May 1968)
364th Bomb Squadron
365th Bomb Squadron
366th Bomb Squadron

Monday, January 28, 2013

More LWF Aircraft Design Considerations

LWF Aircraft Design Considerations.

The design of the airducting for the engine is important. Highest efficiency for the engine airflow. Lowest impact on external aerodynamics. Looking at an aircraft like the F-8, the inlet is right under the nose. This is good for the air inlet efficiency but has a detrimental effect on directional stability. the inlet was pushed as far back as possible without compromising the ducting design.

Twin ventral fins were incorporated that were as large as physically possible to improve directional stability at high supersonic speeds and landing approach. Rudder effectiveness is low at supersonic speeds and the vertical fin flexible. The twin ventrals are similar to those in the F-8.

The horizontal tail surfaces are all movable (no elevators) to maintain a high level of control at supersonic speeds. Differentially, they are also used to supplement roll control at supersonic speeds, in that the wing  mounted ailerons have reduced effectiveness at supersonic speeds.The horizontal tails are tilted down 10-15 degrees to lower the effective tail hcord plane relative to the main wing chord plane to increase tail effectiveness.

Wing dihedral was held at zero since we ran out of time to consider other values.

We investigated nose and wing-body strakes in detail and picked rather large blended wing-body strakes, making sure the Cmcl relationship was not spoiled.

Wing leading edge sweep angles of 31.5 and 40 degrees were considered as well as bi-convex and rounded nose airfoils were also considered. Wing aspect rations of 3, 4, to 5 were investigated. Leading edge flaps were also investigated and selected. We adapted the F-15 wing design to the LWF configuration and compared it to the base line.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

What is the Davidic Covenant?

"What is the Davidic covenant?"




The Davidic Covenant refers to God’s promises to David through Nathan the prophet and is found in 2 Samuel 7 and later summarized in 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and 2 Chronicles 6:16. This is an unconditional covenant made between God and David through which God promises David and Israel that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would come from the lineage of David and the tribe o...f Judah and would establish a kingdom that would endure forever (2 Samuel 7:10-13). The Davidic Covenant is unconditional because God does not place any conditions of obedience upon its fulfillment. The surety of the promises made rests solely on God’s faithfulness and does not depend at all on David or Israel’s obedience.



The Davidic Covenant centers on several key promises that are made to David. 1) God reaffirms the promise of the land that He made in the first two covenants with Israel (the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants). This promise is seen in 2 Samuel 7:10, “Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously.” 2) God promises that David’s descendant or “seed” will succeed him as king of Israel and that David’s throne will be established forever. This promise is seen in 2 Samuel 7:12-13, "I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” This is a reference to the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.



The provisions of the covenant are summarized in 2 Samuel 7:16, “And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” The promise that David’s “house,” “kingdom” and “throne” will be established forever is significant because it shows that the Messiah will come from the lineage of David and that He will establish a kingdom from which He will reign. The covenant is summarized by the words “house,” promising a dynasty in the lineage of David; “kingdom,” referring to a people who are governed by a king; “throne,” emphasizing the authority of the king’s rule; and “forever,” emphasizing the eternal and unconditional nature of this promise to David and Israel.

Friday, January 11, 2013

AFTI/F-16 DFCS and IF/FCS Program

F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration
In March 1980, General Dynamics began converting the sixth FSD F-16A to serve as the technology demonstrator aircraft for the joint Flight Dynamics Laboratory-NASA Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) program. The AFTI F-16 built upon GD’s experience with its YF-16 CCV program, and the AFTI F-16 even received the twin pivoting vertical ventral fins from the CCV aircraft, which were likewise installed under the air intake. The aircraft was also fitted with a narrow dorsal fairing along its spine to house additional electronics. Technologies introduced and tested on the AFTI F-16 include a full-authority triplex Digital Flight Control System (DFCS), a six-degree-of-freedom Automated Maneuvering Attack System (AMAS), a 256-word-capacity Voice-Controlled Interactive Device (VCID) to control the avionics suite, and a helmet-mounted target designation sight that permitted the forward-looking infrared (FLIR) device and the radar to be automatically “slaved” to the pilot’s head movement. First flight of the AFTI F-16 occurred on 10 July 1982. The Air Force Association gave its 1987 Theodore von Karman Award for the most outstanding achievement in science and engineering to the AFTI F-16 team.[45][46]
The AFTI F-16 participated in numerous research and development programs:[47]
  • AFTI Phase I testing (1981–1983): a two-year effort focused on proving the DFCS system.
  • AFTI Phase II testing (1983–1987): evaluation of the wing-root-mounted FLIR and the AMAS system.
  • CAS/BAI (1988–1992): a five-phase evaluation program testing a variety of low-level close air support/battlefield air interdiction (CAS/BAI) techniques, including an Automatic Target Handoff System (ATHS) (which transferred target data from ground stations or other aircraft to the AFTI F-16) and off-axis weapons launch.
  • Talon Sword Bravo (1993–1994): demonstration of cooperative engagement techniques where the aircraft fires at a target based on targeting information datalinked from a distant sensor; the weapon principally investigated was the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).
  • EGI (1994 & 1997): testing of embedded GPS/INS (EGI) navigation systems, including evaluation of the reliability of GPS in jamming environments.
  • AGCAS (1994–1996): testing of an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS or Auto-GCAS) to help reduce the incidence of “controlled flight into terrain" (CFIT); lessons learned from this program were further evolved on the F-16 GCAS.
  • J/IST (1997–2000): testing of the world’s first all-electric flight control system under the Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Subsystem Technologies (J/IST) program.
Mr. John H. Watson was the General Dynamics Program Manager for the AFTI/F-16 DFCS Program and led the pre-proposal development effort, the proposal presentation and the performance of the program objectives through the Digital Fly-by-Wire Flight Control System development and initial flights. Mr. Watson was instrumental in building the engineering team to accomplish this task. The AFTI F-16  contract  was managed by the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. The conduct of this program enabled General Dynamics to built one of the finest (Digital) Flight Control System houses in the world and lead to providing digital flight control systems for the F-16C/D/E/F, the F-111, the F-22, the F-35/A/B/C, the South Korean T-50,  and the Republic of China (Taiwan) IDF aircraft. . The use of these digital systems also enabled significant other development efforts using the AFTI/F-16 aircraft before it was retired.

The YF-16 CCV Program

F-16 CCV Program

F-16 CCV
The first YF-16 (#72-1567) was rebuilt in December 1975 to become the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory's Fighter CCV Program. CCV aircraft can have independent or "decoupled" flight control surfaces, which make it possible to manoeuver in one plane without movement in another -- for example, turning without having to bank. The CCV YF-16 was fitted with twin vertical canards added underneath the air intake, and flight controls were modified to permit use of wing trailing edge flaperons acting in combination with the all moving stabilizers. The fuel system was adapted, so that by transferring fuel from one tank to another, the position of the aircraft center of gravity could be adjusted. The YF-16/CCV flew for the first time on March 16, 1976. On June 24, 1976, it was seriously damaged in a crash landing. While still more than half a mile out, the engine suffered from a loss of power and in the resulting crash landing the landing gear collapsed. Repairs took over 6 months, and its flight test program was resumed in the spring of 1977. The last flight of the YF-16/CCV was on June 31st, 1977, after 87 sorties and 125 air hours had been logged. A few years later, the AFTI/F-16 Program would capitalize on the experience gained from this CCV program. The pre-proposal development effort and the actual proposal presentation were both lead by John H. Watson and Leonard H. Schrieber of General Dynamics. The Principle Engineer for General Dynamics was Dr. Jack D. McAllister and the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory's Program Manager was Mr. Robert P. Johannes.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

AIR COMBAT FIGHTER COMPETITION

Air Combat Fighter Competition
Increased interest would turn the LWF into a serious acquisition program. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway were seeking to replace their F-104G fighter-bombers.  In early 1974, they reached an agreement with the U.S. that if the USAF ordered the LWF winner, they would consider ordering it as well. The USAF also needed to replace its F-105 and F-4 fighter-bombers. The U.S. Congress sought greater commonality in fighter procurements by the Air Force and Navy, and in August 1974 redirected Navy funds to a new Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF) program that would be a navalized fighter-bomber variant of the LWF. The four NATO allies had formed the "Multinational Fighter Program Group" (MFPG) and pressed for a U.S. decision by December 1974; thus the USAF accelerated testing.

YF-16 on display at the Virginia Air and Space Center
To reflect this more serious intent to procure a new fighter-bomber design, the LWF program was rolled into a new Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition in an announcement by U.S. Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger in April 1974. Schlesinger also made it clear that any ACF order would be for aircraft in addition to the F-15, which extinguished opposition to the LWF.  ACF also raised the stakes for GD and Northrop because it brought in competitors intent on securing what was touted at the time as "the arms deal of the century". These were Dassault-Breguet's proposed Mirage F1M-53, the SEPECAT Jaguar, and the proposed Saab 37E "Eurofighter". Northrop offered the P-530 Cobra, which was similar to the YF-17. The Jaguar and Cobra were dropped by the MFPG early on, leaving two European and the two U.S. candidates. On 11 September 1974, the U.S. Air Force confirmed plans to place an order for the winning ACF design to equip five tactical fighter wings. Though computer modeling predicted a close contest, the YF-16 proved significantly quicker going from one maneuver to the next, and was the unanimous choice of those pilots that flew both aircraft. On 13 January 1975, Secretary of the Air Force John L. McLucas announced the YF-16 as the winner of the ACF competition.
The chief reasons given by the Secretary were the YF-16's lower operating costs, greater range, and maneuver performance that was "significantly better" than that of the YF-17, especially at supersonic speeds. Another advantage of the YF-16 – unlike the YF-17 – was its use of the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan engine, the same powerplant used by the F-15; such commonality would lower the cost of engines for both programs. Secretary McLucas announced that the USAF planned to order at least 650, possibly up to 1,400 production F-16s. In the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF) competition, on 2 May 1975 the Navy selected a new proposed design by the joint team of McDonnell Douglas and Northrop based on a Navalized version of  the YF-17, that would become the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.